Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

Introduction to the heaviest elements

Do we need this introductory article: Introduction to the heaviest elements? Seems like and odd one compared to the others introductory articles for topics like: electromagnetism, QM, SR, GR and M-theory. ReyHahn (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the wrong title for the content. The article reads like the appropriate title would be "Nuclear synthesis". The content is unusually well referenced (assuming they are correct). The footnotes should be in the article.

The content itself seems valuable. Merge? The closest I found was Nuclear transmutation and Synthesis of precious metals. Nucleosynthesis is about Big Bang. But of course we also have Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Related is Synthetic radioisotope. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is there as a boilerplate text section to the articles on superheavy elements. Not sure what exactly the policy on that is. Fermiboson (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I gather that what is meant here is for example Hassium has :

Introduction to the heaviest elements[edit]

This section is transcluded from Introduction to the heaviest elements. (edit | history) Johnjbarton (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Can it just be merged back into hassium? Actually is transcluded inside many heavy elements like bohrium, dubnium, nobelium and so on.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSECTION and WP:PARTRANS are the closest guidance I know of - I've not seen an article transcluded like this one before though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It has started as Template:Superheavy element introduction, then was moved to Superheavy element/Short introduction and finally to the current title. That's because templates should not store article text and subpages are not allowed in article space. However, this page is not meant to stand alone as an instance of introductory articles, rather it's only meant to be transcluded as background material in other articles about individual elements. Therefore, this article cannot remain as it is. I propose to merge it into section Superheavy elements#Introduction, then transclude that section instead (preferably via template:excerpt). fgnievinski (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, that sounds like a sensible plan to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I will try to carry this. I just need to be sure that all information is in both articles.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done--ReyHahn (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Liquid crystal

Liquid crystal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Definition of "EM spectrum"

Please weigh in: Talk:Electromagnetic_spectrum#What_is_the_first_sentence_trying_to_say?. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Einstein aether theory?

The article Einstein aether theory looks to me like T Jacobson picked a famous name to attach their work to for reasons of visibility an unfortunate name. Einstein has no "aether theory". Do their publications referring to this name make it a de facto appropriate name for the article nevertheless? Johnjbarton (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Isaacson's biography (around p.320) mentions that Einstein's thinking about the ether became more subtle in later years. Here's a 1920 speech, where he argued in favour of the ether (it is not exactly the same concept as the old ether): [1]. But I don't know whether Jacobson's theory has any connection to that. In general, such article title would be fine if the introduction told us who named it so, and what's the connection to Einstein's theories. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I would describe Einstein's 1920 Leiden lecture as a (nicely worded) complete rejection of luminiferous ether theories. Most of the lecture traces the history of ether theories, showing how, by the time Lorentz arrived with with electron theory, ether had a single mechanical property: "immobility". This "preferred frame" is exactly what drove Einstein's relativity work and this was then eliminated by the special relativity. The end of Einstein's lecture makes the argument that ether is the thing distorted by mass.

What really annoys me is the unnecessary application of Einstein's name to a theory based on a preferred frame. Of course physicists don't care, but Einstein and Aether theory trolls do. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What is it called in the sources?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Before 2004 these theories did not have a catchy name. The articles had names like "preferred frames in relativistic gravity". In 2004 Jacobson and co-workers starting calling it "Einstein aether theory". By now the WP:CRITERIA require that name. However, notice how German Democratic Republic redirects to East Germany: the naming of articles is not always quite as cut and dried as the title guidelines imply.

Anyway fighting the title is a waste of time. The article itself is horrible and that much is easier to fix. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I did move the page to Einstein-aether theory per the original mention of the term, reviews, and every paper I found on the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Reworked Equivalence principle.

I rather massively edited Equivalence principle to a cleaner and more sourced version. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of GRSI model for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GRSI model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRSI model until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rankine–Hugoniot conditions

Hi all. Can someone weigh in here?: Talk:Rankine–Hugoniot conditions#Rankine-Hugoniot condition does not apply to shock waves. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Escape speed vs velocity

Against consensus, user KingSupernova (talk · contribs) moved article Escape velocity to Escape speed, clearly overwhelmingly against the literature. Can someone weigh in at Talk:Escape speed#Moved against literature consensus? Tia - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Draft:Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method

During new page review I moved a page back to draft at Draft:Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method. The page was created directly by @Ocayaro without going through the AfC review process. I have pointed out that the article needs work, and probably will not pass a review as it needs more to meet notability. User Ocayaro feels that this is inappropriate, and wants to have additional expert opinions. I thought it would be simpler to post here for comments to be made to his talk page. Please remember to be polite and remember that new users do not always know how Wikipedia works Ldm1954 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Ocayaro (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Angular mechanics

During new page review I came across Angular mechanics which was created by new editor @GrandMasterGrayson without going through the standard review process. I think it is OK, although it does duplicate some of the other mechanics pages. My feeling is that we should probably keep it and integrate it better, helping him out. However, I do think this is worth a brief discussion on the article talk page or just make edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have had a look at the new article. It places a little emphasis on the role of angular mechanics in aerodynamics, aviation and aeronautical engineering - what has been written in support of this emphasis is amateurish and has no place in an encyclopaedia. For example: “Propellers spin, which generates angular momentum. Because of the momentum, it directs the air back and keeps the plane up while also propelling it forward.” Dolphin (t) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this page is un-encyclopedic, doesn't provide any content that isn't already in Wikipedia, and would best be served by being fully redirected somewhere. Angular momentum, perhaps? PianoDan (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I checked most of the references: no mention of the term "angular mechanics". I'm all for keeping content whenever possible but at most I think some of the refs could be added to other pages, but perhaps to External links. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of angular mechanics as a separate discipline on its own, but rather angular momentum and rotation as parts of classical mechanics. Perhaps merge or redirect to rotation or angular momentum. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In engineering, there is the topic of Rotordynamics, which seems to overlap with some of the new article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Angular mechanics" sounds like a non-standard name for the general topic that is more commonly called "rotational analogs" or "angular analogs" of linear kinematics and dynamics. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a standard name either redirect to angular momentum or to a more precise engineering term.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Analytical dynamics into Dynamics (mechanics)

Please weigh in Talk:Dynamics_(mechanics)#Proposed_merge_of_Analytical_dynamics_into_Dynamics_(mechanics). An attempt 13 years ago failed but the challenges were not significant IMO.

Summary: Make one article named "Dynamics (mechanics)" out of two weak articles, mostly using "Analytical dynamics". Johnjbarton (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to move Identical particles to Indistinguishable particles

Currently "Indistinguishable particles" redirects to Identical particles. Since the article is about QM I propose to reverse this.

Please weigh in on Talk:Identical_particles#Proposal_to_move_this_article_to_Indistinguishable_particles Johnjbarton (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Hooke

Hi all, looking for a "what should I do?" sort of answer. Large chunks of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke#Personality_and_disputes have been marked as "citation needed" since 2020. Is it okay to remove those parts (with a comment on the talk page on why I've done it)? Asking because it's protected. Red Fiona (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: WP:PROVEIT. My only caveat is to look for surrounding refs as I found many refs do not match the content: the sources are occasionally mispositioned. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Red Fiona (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)